We understand that this topic evokes strong feelings. In the interest of maintaining a necessary and productive discussion, we will be taking a strong stance against posters that clearly do not contribute to this aim. Dishonest and bad faith arguments, victim blaming, and attacks on other users, will be strictly moderated. A post which only serves to muddy the waters and dishonestly portray the nature of assault and harassment (and corresponding accusations) is also unwelcome.
On June 26 2020 22:37 Charoisaur wrote: To be clear - Right now in the Rapid situation I think the evidence against him is strong enough with 4 different persons speaking against him that it's okay to remove him from the community unless he has actual proof that the allegations are fake.
But the notion that you should always side with the woman no matter the situation that some people in this thread have stated is complete and utter bullshit. It happened often enough that accusations turned out to be fake and the accused ones certainly didn't deserve it in these situation. I also haven't heard an answer to the question "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" yet except ad honimens. By your own logic the answer to that question should be yes.
What's happening now is that you start by disbelieving the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you can now believe it (for example in the case of Rapid).
What should be happening is that you start by believing the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you don't believe it.
But you know that already, don't you? It would be silly of you to believe that we want you to believe a woman against evidence that she's lying, don't you think?
The correct answer to "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" is and will always be: "But you won't accuse me of rape, will you."
That's not true. What I do is believing the accusation but giving the accused one the benefit of a doubt which should NOT give me the right to crucify him on social media.
This is an empty sentiment. If you give the accused the benefit of the doubt as a rule, then there's no meaningful difference between a disbelief in the accusation and your version of believing it.
On June 26 2020 22:46 ProTech wrote: As a person who has been subject to false allegations, I find it not OK to make headline news of this unless there's proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the allegations are true.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by that? I feel like that's a phrase that's not well-defined, especially when it comes to public accusations like these. I worry that, due to the subjectivity of that sort of threshold, there could be a lot of goalpost-moving. Does one account constitute enough proof? Two accounts? Three? What if there is some written evidence, but maybe it could still be brushed off as a lame joke or fake text, if one truly wanted to be contrarian and in denial that the alleged abuser could have actually abused people? I feel like it's very easy to play the game of "never quite having enough proof", if we wanted to try hard enough to rally behind the accused and not the victim. The threshold for being convinced is different for everyone, so I certainly don't mind airing everything in public and then having the public assess the evidence so far; besides, the willingness to even hear a first story makes it more likely for other stories to be made public too, and we should prefer that over scaring victims into being uncomfortable with coming forward.
While I do understand that might be harsh for people coming forward, we also should look at this from the perspective of the accused, and the fact that this is the internet. Rapids reputation is basically shot, regardless of whether these accusations are true, or false.
I think Rapid's reputation is very likely to be shot because there are multiple corroborative stories against him, which is the fault of Rapid and not the victims. We could certainly posit a way for Rapid's reputation to be restored - if he demonstrates that all of the people speaking out against him are in some sort of conspiracy to assassinate his character - but I'd imagine it's unlikely that everyone else is faking it just to destroy him.
On June 26 2020 22:37 Charoisaur wrote: To be clear - Right now in the Rapid situation I think the evidence against him is strong enough with 4 different persons speaking against him that it's okay to remove him from the community unless he has actual proof that the allegations are fake.
But the notion that you should always side with the woman no matter the situation that some people in this thread have stated is complete and utter bullshit. It happened often enough that accusations turned out to be fake and the accused ones certainly didn't deserve it in these situation. I also haven't heard an answer to the question "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" yet except ad honimens. By your own logic the answer to that question should be yes.
What's happening now is that you start by disbelieving the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you can now believe it (for example in the case of Rapid).
What should be happening is that you start by believing the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you don't believe it.
But you know that already, don't you? It would be silly of you to believe that we want you to believe a woman against evidence that she's lying, don't you think?
The correct answer to "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" is and will always be: "But you won't accuse me of rape, will you."
That's not true. What I do is believing the accusation but giving the accused one the benefit of a doubt which should NOT give me the right to crucify him on social media.
This is an empty sentiment. If you give the accused the benefit of the doubt as a rule, then there's no meaningful difference between a disbelief in the accusation and your version of believing it.
It's just not 100% either you believe it or you believe it not. Before you have lots of additional information you just can't or shouldn't make up your opinion about it with absolute certainty.
On June 26 2020 22:37 Charoisaur wrote: To be clear - Right now in the Rapid situation I think the evidence against him is strong enough with 4 different persons speaking against him that it's okay to remove him from the community unless he has actual proof that the allegations are fake.
But the notion that you should always side with the woman no matter the situation that some people in this thread have stated is complete and utter bullshit. It happened often enough that accusations turned out to be fake and the accused ones certainly didn't deserve it in these situation. I also haven't heard an answer to the question "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" yet except ad honimens. By your own logic the answer to that question should be yes.
What's happening now is that you start by disbelieving the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you can now believe it (for example in the case of Rapid).
What should be happening is that you start by believing the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you don't believe it.
But you know that already, don't you? It would be silly of you to believe that we want you to believe a woman against evidence that she's lying, don't you think?
The correct answer to "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" is and will always be: "But you won't accuse me of rape, will you."
That's not true. What I do is believing the accusation but giving the accused one the benefit of a doubt which should NOT give me the right to crucify him on social media.
This is an empty sentiment. If you give the accused the benefit of the doubt as a rule, then there's no meaningful difference between a disbelief in the accusation and your version of believing it.
It's just not 100% either you believe it or you believe it not. Before you have lots of additional information you just can't or shouldn't make up your opinion about it with absolute certainty.
Nobody is asking for your certainty. It is okay to believe someone, then learn some new information about the situation and revise your position. You did that with Rapid if I'm following? You started by doubting his accuser, now more people have come forward and you estimate that this is enough for you to believe the accusers.
This is fine, it's just that it's backwards. You should start on the side of the accuser.
We can use a real example if you want. Some dumbass named Karlos Dillard tried to create a Karen video a few days ago and it went viral. Apparently that woman was a racist that called him the N word and everything. Then we find out that this guy has been trying to go viral for a while by accusing people of being racist toward him and filming their reaction. He's now trying to sell anti-Karen tee-shirts and make a buck off of it.
You can start by believing him, and then you add the new information that he's a grifting piece of shit, and you revise your position. This is okay.
On June 26 2020 22:37 Charoisaur wrote: To be clear - Right now in the Rapid situation I think the evidence against him is strong enough with 4 different persons speaking against him that it's okay to remove him from the community unless he has actual proof that the allegations are fake.
But the notion that you should always side with the woman no matter the situation that some people in this thread have stated is complete and utter bullshit. It happened often enough that accusations turned out to be fake and the accused ones certainly didn't deserve it in these situation. I also haven't heard an answer to the question "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" yet except ad honimens. By your own logic the answer to that question should be yes.
What's happening now is that you start by disbelieving the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you can now believe it (for example in the case of Rapid).
What should be happening is that you start by believing the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you don't believe it.
But you know that already, don't you? It would be silly of you to believe that we want you to believe a woman against evidence that she's lying, don't you think?
The correct answer to "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" is and will always be: "But you won't accuse me of rape, will you."
That's not true. What I do is believing the accusation but giving the accused one the benefit of a doubt which should NOT give me the right to crucify him on social media.
This is an empty sentiment. If you give the accused the benefit of the doubt as a rule, then there's no meaningful difference between a disbelief in the accusation and your version of believing it.
It's just not 100% either you believe it or you believe it not. Before you have lots of additional information you just can't or shouldn't make up your opinion about it with absolute certainty.
He never said, you should make up your opinion with absolute certainty. He said, give the victim benefit of the doubt, instead of the accused.
On June 26 2020 22:37 Charoisaur wrote: To be clear - Right now in the Rapid situation I think the evidence against him is strong enough with 4 different persons speaking against him that it's okay to remove him from the community unless he has actual proof that the allegations are fake.
But the notion that you should always side with the woman no matter the situation that some people in this thread have stated is complete and utter bullshit. It happened often enough that accusations turned out to be fake and the accused ones certainly didn't deserve it in these situation. I also haven't heard an answer to the question "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" yet except ad honimens. By your own logic the answer to that question should be yes.
What's happening now is that you start by disbelieving the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you can now believe it (for example in the case of Rapid).
What should be happening is that you start by believing the accusation, and then if you have more information you decide that you don't believe it.
But you know that already, don't you? It would be silly of you to believe that we want you to believe a woman against evidence that she's lying, don't you think?
The correct answer to "If I accused you of rape, should you be treated like a rapist?" is and will always be: "But you won't accuse me of rape, will you."
That's not true. What I do is believing the accusation but giving the accused one the benefit of a doubt which should NOT give me the right to crucify him on social media.
This is an empty sentiment. If you give the accused the benefit of the doubt as a rule, then there's no meaningful difference between a disbelief in the accusation and your version of believing it.
It's just not 100% either you believe it or you believe it not. Before you have lots of additional information you just can't or shouldn't make up your opinion about it with absolute certainty.
Nobody is asking for your certainty. It is okay to believe someone, then learn some new information about the situation and revise your position. You did that with Rapid if I'm following? You started by doubting his accuser, now more people have come forward and you estimate that this is enough for you to believe the accusers.
This is fine, it's just that it's backwards. You should start on the side of the accuser.
We can use a real example if you want. Some dumbass named Karlos Dillard tried to create a Karen video a few days ago and it went viral. Apparently that woman was a racist that called him the N word and everything. Then we find out that this guy has been trying to go viral for a while by accusing people of being racist toward him and filming their reaction. He's now trying to sell anti-Karen tee-shirts and make a buck off of it.
You can start by believing him, and then you add the new information that he's a grifting piece of shit, and you revise your position. This is okay.
Yeah believing them is of course fine. But spreading on social what a scumbag the accused one is and so on is not fine if we don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
BRD is the burden of proof to hold someone liable for murder such that they can be imprisoned or in some places put to death. The idea that the same standard should be used for public condemnation of intolerable behavior makes very little sense.
On June 26 2020 11:26 XenOsky wrote: Pls go to the authorities, not twitter. If you cant provee abuse/harrasment you are doing serious dmg to a persons carreer with no proof.
This is serious shit and must be attacked seriously.
You need to research these cases in regards to police involvement. Generally not much happens.
Putting your name out like these women have has been the best way to tackle this issue.
What happened to AngryJoe is the PERFECT example of why "Believe all women" is fucking stupid and toxic.
He had to invest in lawyers and have is reputation affected. Then the girl simply says, "oh, maybe he did nothing wrong and he had no bad intention" then she deletes her accusations.
Its sad because not only it affects Joe heavily, but because of bitches like her, real victims lose a lot of credibility.
On June 26 2020 23:15 Maruisgoat1994 wrote: What happened to AngryJoe is the PERFECT example of why "Believe all women" is fucking stupid and toxic.
He had to invest in lawyers and have is reputation affected. Then the girl simply says, "oh, maybe he did nothing wrong and he had no bad intention" then she deletes her accusations.
Its sad because not only it affects Joe heavily, but because of bitches like her, real victims lose a lot of credibility.
Obviously it s realy sad, to see wrong accusations, exactly because of those cases. They are a big minority tho. So the right way would be to give supoosedly victimes the benefit of the doubt andd search for additional information then. Also trying to better the system/ community is also a step in the right direction. Beliving all women doesnt mean beliving all accusations, no matter what.
Edit: I also want to add, that I never heard about AngryJoe, or that incident in peticular.
On June 26 2020 23:15 Maruisgoat1994 wrote: What happened to AngryJoe is the PERFECT example of why "Believe all women" is fucking stupid and toxic.
He had to invest in lawyers and have is reputation affected. Then the girl simply says, "oh, maybe he did nothing wrong and he had no bad intention" then she deletes her accusations.
Its sad because not only it affects Joe heavily, but because of bitches like her, real victims lose a lot of credibility.
Obviously it s realy sad, to see wrong accusations, exactly because of those cases. They are a big minority tho. So the right way would be to give supoosedly victimes the benefit of the doubt andd search for additional information then. Also trying to better the system/ community is also a step in the right direction. Beliving all women doesnt mean, beliving all accusations, no matter what.
I think the appeal to emotion used by folks referencing the Joe situation becomes much less tenable once one considers the incredible numbers of mostly women who never come forward with stories of having been assaulted or raped. Yes, it’s awful that someone’s reputation gets tarnished unjustly, but we are starting from a place of immense widespread injustice in the first place.
On June 26 2020 23:15 Maruisgoat1994 wrote: What happened to AngryJoe is the PERFECT example of why "Believe all women" is fucking stupid and toxic.
He had to invest in lawyers and have is reputation affected. Then the girl simply says, "oh, maybe he did nothing wrong and he had no bad intention" then she deletes her accusations.
Its sad because not only it affects Joe heavily, but because of bitches like her, real victims lose a lot of credibility.
I’m unfamiliar with this particular incident.
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that this accuser got a torrent of abuse from some fans of the guy and didn’t think it was worth the hassle pursuing it?
On June 26 2020 23:15 Maruisgoat1994 wrote: What happened to AngryJoe is the PERFECT example of why "Believe all women" is fucking stupid and toxic.
He had to invest in lawyers and have is reputation affected. Then the girl simply says, "oh, maybe he did nothing wrong and he had no bad intention" then she deletes her accusations.
Its sad because not only it affects Joe heavily, but because of bitches like her, real victims lose a lot of credibility.
I’m unfamiliar with this particular incident.
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that this accuser got a torrent of abuse from some fans of the guy and didn’t think it was worth the hassle pursuing it?
No idea who he is either. Wikipedia says he's a YouTuber ::shrugs:: Nothing's even mentioned in his entry about said accusations or drama, unless this isn't the right person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Joe
On June 26 2020 23:15 Maruisgoat1994 wrote: What happened to AngryJoe is the PERFECT example of why "Believe all women" is fucking stupid and toxic.
He had to invest in lawyers and have is reputation affected. Then the girl simply says, "oh, maybe he did nothing wrong and he had no bad intention" then she deletes her accusations.
Its sad because not only it affects Joe heavily, but because of bitches like her, real victims lose a lot of credibility.
I’m unfamiliar with this particular incident.
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that this accuser got a torrent of abuse from some fans of the guy and didn’t think it was worth the hassle pursuing it?
No idea who he is either. Wikipedia says he's a YouTuber ::shrugs:: Nothing's even mentioned in his entry about said accusations or drama, unless this isn't the right person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Joe
On June 26 2020 23:15 Maruisgoat1994 wrote: What happened to AngryJoe is the PERFECT example of why "Believe all women" is fucking stupid and toxic.
He had to invest in lawyers and have is reputation affected. Then the girl simply says, "oh, maybe he did nothing wrong and he had no bad intention" then she deletes her accusations.
Its sad because not only it affects Joe heavily, but because of bitches like her, real victims lose a lot of credibility.
I’m unfamiliar with this particular incident.
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that this accuser got a torrent of abuse from some fans of the guy and didn’t think it was worth the hassle pursuing it?
No idea who he is either. Wikipedia says he's a YouTuber ::shrugs:: Nothing's even mentioned in his entry about said accusations or drama, unless this isn't the right person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Joe
I am so sorry for you and i d like to share my revulsion for such actions. As father of 2 daughters , i am revolted to understand that because of men behaviours they will not be free to choose an e-sport carreer .
So plz keep on reporting such offenses and count on my support
On June 26 2020 23:15 Maruisgoat1994 wrote: What happened to AngryJoe is the PERFECT example of why "Believe all women" is fucking stupid and toxic.
He had to invest in lawyers and have is reputation affected. Then the girl simply says, "oh, maybe he did nothing wrong and he had no bad intention" then she deletes her accusations.
Its sad because not only it affects Joe heavily, but because of bitches like her, real victims lose a lot of credibility.
I’m unfamiliar with this particular incident.
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that this accuser got a torrent of abuse from some fans of the guy and didn’t think it was worth the hassle pursuing it?
No idea who he is either. Wikipedia says he's a YouTuber ::shrugs:: Nothing's even mentioned in his entry about said accusations or drama, unless this isn't the right person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Joe
Sounds like (and glancing at her twitter) what Wombat suggested more or less to me.
I don't know what to think on this one. I'm a fan of angryjoe so i'm probably biased, but i wish it was easier to find a story about it online that wasn't written by an angryjoe fan because this woman got zero support and was immediately set upon by angryjoe's twitter army, which is a totally unfair reaction.
EPT
